The Boston Indicators Project offers new ways to understand Boston and its neighborhoods in a regional, national and global context. It aims to democratize access to information, foster informed public discourse, track progress on shared civic goals, and report on change in 10 sectors: Civic Vitality, Cultural Life and the Arts, the Economy, Education, the Environment, Health, Housing, Public Safety, Technology, and Transportation.

This cross-cut filter measures fiscal health in several ways: by tracking municipal, state and federal funding as well as levels of philanthropic giving to the nonprofit sector. In a high-cost city such as Boston, the financial health of individuals and families is another important measure of the fiscal stability and health of the region.

Nonprofits are an essential part of community and civic life, providing opportunities for like-minded neighbors or people to meet and begin to work together. Boston is home to some of the best-known nonprofits in the world, ranging from large to small in size and global to local in reach. The larger organizations offer “deep benches” including well-developed expertise and stability. Smaller nonprofits often offer an intimate understanding of one neighborhood or ethnic group, or innovative responses to issues that others may not at first recognize as important such as HIV/AIDS awareness, community gardening, neighborhood arts programs and community-based technology training.

How are we doing?

There were 3,871 public charities registered in Suffolk County in 2011, about 16% of Massachusetts’ total of 23,828 according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics.

Budget: The majority of organizations, 2,508, in Suffolk County are Grassroots Organizations with a budget size of $250,000 or less. Safety Net Organizations with budgets between $250,000 and $50 million comprise 1,282 of all organizations, with most (580) in the smaller side with a budget between $250,000 and $1 million. There are 81 organizations in Suffolk County that are considered "Economic Engines" with budgets over $50 million.

Organization Type: About one-third (1,207) of organizations in Suffolk County are Social Services such as community capacity-building, housing & shelter, and youth sports & recreation organizations. The additional two-thirds are other societal benefit organizations such in the Arts (444), Education (599), Environment (121), Health Care & Medical (620), Philanthropy (186) and Other nonprofit organizations (694). Education and Health Care organizations make up the five largest organizations by employment in Suffolk County : Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston University and Children’s Hospital.

The strength of the nonprofit sector is bound directly to the strength of the philanthropic sector, with many of the Commonwealth's more than 30,000 nonprofit organizations reliant on Foundation and individual giving to sustain their work.

How are we doing?

As of 2011 there were 23,828 organizations in the philanthropic sector--including foundations--registered in Massachusetts, up from 21,062 in 2003, according to the report Passion & Purpose Revisited. The philanthropic sector had more than $52 million in revenue and held more than $62 million in total assets in 2011.

According to the most recent data available from Foundation Center, the number of charitable foundations in Massachusetts increased from 1,895 in 1997 to 2,413 in 2009 and total giving increase from $373 million to $1.2 billion over the same time, though this does not capture the trends since the recession.

Legislative funding for the arts represents a community’s strength of commitment in supporting the arts. At the same time, government-designated allocations represent a significant source of funding for cultural institutions, non-profits and even individual artists. Legislative appropriations to state arts agencies and councils – which act as grant maker –clearly mark the level of support for the cultural sector.

How are we doing?

In FY2012 the Massachusetts legislature appropriated $6.2 million for the Massachusetts Cultural Council—the fourth consecutive year of funding cuts which has fallen by 52% from the most recent high of $13 million in FY2009. At its peak, the legislature allocated more than $16 million to the MCC in FY2002.

Funding for the Cultural Facilities Fund was zeroed out in FY2012 for the third consecutive year. At its inception, the CFF received $13 million from the legislature and it was last funded at $6 million in FY2009.

We apologize, but in order to view our visualizations you need to install the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

A diverse regional economy offers a wide range of jobs and advancement opportunities for people at all skill levels and helps insulate from industry-specific down-turns.

How are we doing?

Total:As of 2011 Q3, Boston's average monthly employment was 565,164, the highest count since prior to the recession in 2008. However, Boston has yet to recover more than 18,000 jobs lost in the 2001 recession. This trend is not unique to Boston; throughout 2011 Metro Boston added a net 38,000 jobs, but total employment of about 2.4 million was 123,000 lower than last decade's employment peak in February 2001.

By Industry: As of 2011 Q1, Boston’s dominant industries were Education & Health Services, with nearly 170,000 employees in 2011; Professional & Business Services, with more than 90,000 employees; and Financial Activities, with more than 73,000, together accounting for more than 60% of Boston’s 550,000 jobs. Within these super sectors are detailed industries describing specific goods produced and services rendered, such as Software Publishers, employing nearly 1,000 in the Information super sector. Boston’s largest detailed industries were: Medical & Surgical Hospitals, at 69,242 employees; Colleges & Universities, at 33,208; and Financial Investment Activities, at 19,569.

By Occupation: As of 2010, Boston's largest occupation categories were Office & Administrative Support positions at 90,640, Health Practitioner & Technical positions with over 53,000, Business & Financial occupations with about 49,000 and Food Prep & Serving occupations with more than 45,000 workers.

We apologize, but in order to view our visualizations you need to install the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

Since 1985, total employment in Boston peaked at more than 583,000 in 2000 before falling through two recessions. Through the end of 2011, total employment was more than 568,000, about equal to 2008 before the more recent downturn.

We apologize, but in order to view our visualizations you need to install the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

AS of 2010, the average weekly wage in Boston was under $1,500 up from about $1,200 in 2001. However, the average weekly wages for Financial Activities was more than $3,000 while average wages in Leisure and Hospitality was $650.

Half of all jobs in the Commonwealth are created by small businesses and in Boston - a city of neighborhoods - many small businesses are a source not only of economic development but also social capital. They serve as gathering places as well as showcases for local subcultures in addition to creating jobs and a sense of community investment. It is important that such businesses have access to economic resources, which enable them to start and expand their enterprises, and that business loans reflect Boston’s changing demographics as a measure of its civic health.

How are we doing?

While Boston is well known for a few of its bigger institutions, such as Liberty Mutual or State Street, it is in small business employment that Boston really shines. According to Boston’s own Small Business Plan, the city’s small businesses make up over 40,000 establishments, generating around $15 billion in revenue and approximately 170,000 jobs. Of these, the simplest definition suggests that over 95% are sole proprietorships with fewer than 50 employees, or on average make under $5 million annually in revenue.

Across the city of Boston, employment and employers are concentrated predominantly in three neighborhoods – Central Boston, Back Bay/Beacon Hill, and South Boston; while the Fenway/Kenmore neighborhood features the fourth-most concentration of jobs in the city, at 19% of the overall employment.

The amount of office space that is occupied or vacated over a given period is an indicator of the strength of white-collar industries in legal and financial services as well as research and development as well as the demand for other service-sector industries. As an anchor and magnet for businesses and an attractive city for tourists, Boston is also selected as a venue for conferences, conventions and vacations. In times of rapid economic growth, the demand for office space increases, putting pressure on rents and spurring new development to accommodate new economic growth. In economic downturns, commercial space reflects the slower or negative growth.&nbsp

How are we doing?

Office Market: As of Q2 2012 Boston’s office vacancy rate was 11.5%, up from 9% in Q2 2009 and the low point of 6% in Q3 2007 but still lower than the high of 13.8% in Q3 2003. The tightest office market was located in Back Bay with a vacancy rate of 5.3% and an average asking price of $53.60 per square foot. Vacancy in the Central Business District was 14.4% with an average price of $43 per square foot and in Core Downtown vacancy was 12% with an average price of $44.78 per square foot.

Hotel Market: the Boston/Cambridge area hotel market improved on all key metrics from 2010 to 2011: occupancy increased from to 77% from 76%, the average room rate increased to $199.02 from $193.22 and the revenue per available room (RevPAR) increased to $153.24 from $146.27. Growth is projected to continue through 2012, to a 78% occupancy rate, $216.93 average room are and $169.20 RevPAR.

The Gini Index is a statistical method that measures the distribution of income. An index of zero represents a condition in which every family earns the same amount. Higher figures represent greater income inequality among families. Comparing the income disparities between the top and the bottom 20% of the population provides the most dramatic contrast and tells us how wide the chasm is between wealth and poverty.

How are we doing?

In 2010, Boston’s Gini index of income inequality .543—the highest recorded over the last fifty years—ranking as the third most unequal among the 50 largest US cities, behind Atlanta and Miami. This surpasses the previous high of .533 in 2007 at the height of the pre-recession boom. Because of the recession, in 2009 the Gini index fell to .519, the lowest since 2000, but quickly worsened in the recovery. Historically, Boston’s GINI index has ranged between 0.335 in 1960 and 0.481 in 2000. Statewide, Massachusetts’ Gini index in 2010 was 0.475 and tied with Louisiana as the third most unequal state behind New York and Connecticut.

In 2010 the share of aggregate income held by Boston’s top 20% of households increased to 56% in 2010, up from 54% in 2009 and the share held by the top 5% of households remained steady at about 26% of total income earned in Boston in 2010. The bottom 20% of household held just 1.7% of aggregate income in 2010, down from 2.2% in 2009.

Boston’s Crittenton-Women’s Union developed the Economic Independence Index, formerly the Family Self Sufficiency Status. It includes the costs of housing, food, child care, health care, transportation, miscellaneous items, and taxes—without any public or private subsidies and no allowance for saving for retirement, children’s education, or emergency expenses. The wage required for economic independence varies by geographic area and by family size and composition. The high cost of living in Boston raises questions about the self-sufficiency wages for different categories of families.

How are we doing?

The income required for a single parent in Boston to support one preschooler and one school-age child increased to $62,421 in 2010 from $39,156 in 1998, according to the Crittenton-Women’s Union. The Economic Independence wage for a family of four including one adult rises to more than $80,000 to cover housing, food, clothing, education and other basic necessities. This is more than four times the Federal Poverty Threshold and more than double 185% of Federal Poverty, the point at which most state and federal subsidies and supports expire. An estimated 150,000 Bostonians—including 30,000 children—live between 185% of poverty and 400% of the federal poverty level—a proxy for economic self-sufficiency.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is constitutionally required to end each fiscal year with a balanced budget. In times of economic growth and expansion, this may provide the state with a surplus to save, spend or reinvest, but at times of economic contraction, declining revenues often require a reduction in spending resulting in cuts to programs that support the social safety net.

How are we doing?

In FY12 the Commonwealth’s budget was more than $34 billion, a 4% decline since FY09 when adjusted for inflation. Rising unemployment, declining wages and reduced purchasing power associated with the Great Recession have left the Commonwealth—along with every other state—with a budget deficit for the fourth year running of $1.9 billion for FY12 down from $5 billion in 2010. However, the loss of Federal Stimulus Funding in FY11 meant that a larger share of the budget gap had to be filled with program cuts leaving crucial services to low-income residents underfunded, includining:

Head Start and Universal Pre-K will funding were reduced by 27% and 40% respectively between FY09 and FY12;

Child Care subsidies for income-eligible and TAFDC recipients were reduced by $629,000 and $4.9 million respectively from FY11. This follows a combined reduction of $55 million (-16%) between FY09 and FY11;

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Programs received just $3.4 million in the FY12 budget—a 43% reduction from FY11 funding. This follows a 57% reduction since FY09 when these programs received $14.7 million;

Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children was cut by $8.1 million from FY11 to FY12, including a reduction of the child clothing allowance from $150 to $40 per child. This cut will affect an estimated 70,000 across Massachusetts.

SNAP (Food Stamps) in FY12 allocates $900,000 in state support, down from $1.2 million in FY09. Because of Federal stimulus provisions, the state did not fund SNAP in FY11, but the stimulus provisions ended in FY11.

In FY11, Massachusetts’ budget shortfall was 5.7% of its total projected expenditures—which ranked it 5th lowest among all of the states. By comparison, states with the highest deficit-to-expenditure ratio had double-digit shortfalls: Nevada, 45% of total expenditures; New Jersey, 37%; Texas at 30.5%; and California at 29.3%.To close the revenue gap, the Massachusetts Legislature drew down part of the state’s Rainy Day Fund foresightedly built up during the good years. However, in FY10, the Legislature voted for a sales tax increase, which was projected to raise $1 billion from FY10 through FY12.

The fiscal health of the City of Boston not only impacts the provision of basic services, such as housing, transportation and sanitation, but also the capacity to invest in the arts, community economic development and new technology that make Boston a world-class city.

How are we doing?

As of FY12, the City of Boston’s total budget was balanced with $2.394 billion in revenues and expenses after posting a budget surplus of $5.91 million in FY11 and $9.09 million in FY10. The proposed budget for FY13 is balanced at $2.454 billion, a 2.5% increase over FY12. Overall, expenditures have been rising faster than revenues, having increased by 7% and 6.6% respectively between FY10 to FY13.

Revenue: Growth in revenue has been driven by property tax levy which increased by 14% from $1.475 billion in FY10 to a projected $1.675 billion in FY13, a 40% increase in excise taxes from $103 million in FY10 to a projected $145 million in FY13, and a 27% increase in Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) from $34.9 million in FY10 to $43.5 million in FY13. Over the same time, local aid from the state declined by 6% from $413 million in FY10 to $388 million in FY13.

Expenses: Health care costs comprise 12% of total FY13 expenditures and have contributed the most to the growth of costs over the last decade. From FY01 through FY15, health insurance costs are projected to rise by 135% compared to a 39% increase in all other city costs over the same time. Other high-growth expenditures include: other post-employment benefits by the City of Boston have doubled from $20 million to $40 million between FY10 and FY13; total pension payment increased by 25% from $108 million to $135 million from FY10 to FY13; and total debt service payments increased by 10% from $125.5 million to 137.5 million.

The City of Boston is comprised of 77 different departments organized into 13 mayoral cabinets:

Office of the Mayor

Administration & Finance

Personnel & Labor Relations

Advocacy & Strategic Investment

Public Property

Economic Development

Information

Education

Environmental & Energy Services

Housing & Neighborhood Development

Human services

Public Health

Streets, Transportation & Sanitation

The city of Boston also includes non-Mayoral agencies such as the Boston Housing Authority and the Water & Sewer Commission and Intergovernmental relations with the state and county.

More than half of Massachusetts’ total revenues come from taxes, with more than one-third derived from the income tax. Tax policy can be progressive with higher-earning individuals and institutions paying a larger share of income toward taxes, regressive with lower-income earners paying a greater share of income in taxes, or neutral with a flat tax rate.

How are we doing?

Massachusetts total state and local tax structure—including income, property, gas, excise, sales and other taxes—is regressive, with the poorest 20% paying nearly twice the rate of the wealthiest 5% in Massachusetts. In 2010, the poorest 20% of Massachusetts residents paid nearly 10% of their income in all state and local taxes combined, including the state’s income tax, while the wealthiest 1%—with incomes greater than $580,000— paid less than 6%

The Massachusetts Department of Early Education & Care supports the health, well-being and development of children from the earliest ages. As a part of the Executive Office of Education, EEC provides oversight, licensure and workforce development for early childhood educators, provides financial assistance for family child care, supports the Head Start program and engages parents and community members in the education of the youngest children.

How are we doing?

The Department of Early Education & Care received more than $506 million in funding in FY12, which is roughly the same amount received in FY10 and 11. However, this is a reduction from the decade-long peak in FY09 when EEC received more than $569 million.

We apologize, but in order to view our visualizations you need to install the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (DESE) is charged with oversight of students from grades K through 12 enrolled in 1,829 public schools, 62 Commonwealth Charter Schools, 10 Horace Mann Charter Schools and 30 Education Collaboratives as well as thousands of teachers, principals and administrators. Chapter 70 of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act allows for a more equitable distribution of funding to school districts based on need while all other funding for K-12 education can be used for supplemental resources.

How are we doing?

Massachusetts Chapter 70 funding fell slightly in FY12 to $3.9 billion from a high of near $4.1 billion in FY11. However, total funding is up from just over $2.9 billion in FY01. Non-Chapter 70 funding for K-12 education has been inconsistent over the last decade, but increased in FY12 to over $511 million from $423 million in FY11. However, funding remains below the peak of $583 million in FY09.

Despite consistently strong funding for K-12 Education, recent research has found that nearly every extra dollar allocated to school districts through Chapter 70 has been off-set by the increasing cost of employee health care.

The state and the Boston region have many outstanding parklands - and maintaining them requires a regular infusion of funding. As in other areas, deferred maintenance often leads to higher costs, and in the case of parkland, the lack of maintenance also often leads to disuse for recreational purposes and a transition to unwelcome and unsafe use.

How are we doing?

In FY12, funding for the Massachusetts Department of Energy & Environmental Affairs fell to its lowest level a decade at $71.9 million after peaking at nearly $96 million in FY02. Prior to the economic downturn, funding had rebounded to more than $86 million in FY08, but has steadily declined every year since.

Funding for Parks and Recreation statewide has also fallen steadily over the last few years, to $71.5 million in FY12 from a peak of $139 million in FY06. However, funding in FY12 was higher than the low in FY05 of $71 million.

Next to housing, transportation is typically the second largest cost burden on a family. Nationally, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, it spends 77 cents more on transportation. This shows the basic tradeoff many working families face between paying a greater share of their income for housing or enduring long commutes and high transportation costs.

How are we doing?

Households in Metro Boston spend an average of 47% of household income on combined housing and transportation costs according to the Combined Housing & Transit Cost Index calculated by the Center for Neighborhood Technology. In Boston, where the median household income is $52,400, residents spend an average of 56% of their household income on housing and transportation. However, this is driven primarily by high housing cost burden (41%) as opposed to transit cost burden (15%).

The ideal is to create a range of housing affordability within each of Boston’s neighborhoods to provide for a healthy mix of residents – including seniors, singles, young families, and people of many backgrounds and all incomes.

How are we doing?

Boston has consistently retained a subsidized housing inventory that is about 20% of total housing stock, allowing Boston to remain a city that is welcoming and supportive of households of all income levels. However, only 35 cities and towns statewide have a subsidized housing inventory above 10%, 130 communities have between 5% and 10% subsidized and 186 communities have less than 5% affordable housing. Under Chapter 40B, communities with less than 10% affordable housing a housing developer can circumvent local zoning laws and build high-density housing as long as 25% of the units are designated as affordable.

State and federal funding for housing are essential for the production of affordable housing, reduction of homelessness and support of smart growth development that help to support stability and affordability within communities.

How are we doing?

The Massachusetts Legislature allocated more than $364 million to support housing programs, subsidies an development, down 8.5% from the $398 million allocated in FY12. Despite the one-year decline, funding for housing is up by 24% from FY09 when adjusted for inflation.

Continuing support for a "Housing First" approach to homelessness reduction, which began in FY07, the legislature further reduced funding for Emergency Assistance housing and Hotels/Motels by more than $57 million in FY13 in favor of increased funding for the HomeBase, up $17 million, Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program, up $6 million, and Residential Assistance for Families in Transition, up $8.5 million.

We apologize, but in order to view our visualizations you need to install the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

The funding that Massachusetts’ and Metro Boston’s research institutions and universities attracts reflects the region's international reputation as fertile ground for innovation. Local research and development activities support breakthrough thinking, the development of new technologies, and the emergence of dynamic economic sectors. The combination of funding for research and development (R&D) and local access to venture capital (VC) supports entrepreneurs' conversion of ideas and pilot projects into economic activity and prosperity.

How are we doing?

R&D: Massachusetts ranked 6th in total funding for Research & Development with nearly $2.5 million and 3rd in per capita R&D funding with $373 per capita as of FY09, the most recent year for which data are available. More than half of the funding, $1.8 million, came from the federal government ranking 3rd in total federal funds. Massachusetts ranked 6th in total funding from industry but only 37th in R&D funding provided by the state.

Venture Capital: As of Q1 2012, the New England Region had the second largest VC investment value in the nation, at $678 million and nearly 12% of the nation’s total. In 2011, Massachusetts per capita VC as $455, the highest of all leading technology states, despite falling from $491 per capita in 2006 according to the Mass Tech Collaborative.

Transportation costs constitute a major expenditure for most households, often second only to housing. Motor vehicles can be expensive to purchase, insure fuel, maintain, and repair. Like housing and health care, transportation costs affect the decisions people make about where to live, start a business or raise a family.

How are we doing?

Metro Boston had the 6th lowest overall transportation costs among the largest US metro’s, averaging $12,394 per household from 2005-2009. However, among the 18 metro regions included in the Consumer Expenditure Survey, Boston ranked 5th in transit cost burden with transportation costs accounting for more than 14% of all expenses in 2010.

We apologize, but in order to view our visualizations you need to install the latest version of Adobe Flash Player.

Boston's combined Housing & Transportation costs combined for 56% of median household income in 2010. Some communities may have a lower cost burden because of higher incomes or greater use of lower-cost transit options.

Transportation infrastructure—roads, bridges, public transit, airports and seaports—is the backbone of economic connectivity and dynamism for Greater Boston and Massachusetts. A fiscally sound multi-modal system is essential to ensure a state of good repair and to make future improvements that allow residents, goods and services to remain highly mobile.

How are we doing?

Federal Funding: MassDOT received $648 million in federal funding in FY12 with $350 million going to stat e bridge, road and highway projects and $139 million allocated for regional Metropolitan Planning organizations. In FY12 the Boston MPO received $64 million. Massachusetts received $292 million in federal funding for transit, with $244 million going to the MBTA.

State Funding: Massachusetts General Appropriations Act allocated $1.14 billion in total transportation funding in FY12, a 23% inflation-adjusted decline since FY01 and a 12% decline since the last funding peak of $1.23 billion in FY10. According to the Transportation Finance Commission report, Massachusetts faces a $15 to $19 billion transportation deficit over the next 20 years.

MassDOT: FY12 revenues from the Commonwealth Transportation Trust Fund and the Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund were about $2 billion combined, of which about half went to debt service payments.

Commonwealth Transportation Trust Fund was nearly $1.5 billion in FY12, funded with $660 million in gas tax revenues, $500 million in Registry fees, $302 million from the sales tax and $3 million in additional revenues. In FY12 the CTTF provided $160 million to the MBTA and $15 million to Regional Transit Authorities.

Massachusetts Transportation Trust Fund was $680 million in FY12, including $320 million from the CTTF, $350 million in Mass Turnpike and Tobin Bridge revenues and $10 million in other revenue. The MTTF provided $360 million to the Mass Turnpike and Tobin Bridge as well as $151 for the MassDOT Operating Budget.

Unfunded Capital Projects: MassDOT has about $5.3 billion worth of capital project needs for paving, system maintenance, bridges and pedestrian infrastructure of which about $3.1 billion—57%--remains unfunded.

MBTA: As of FY13, the T faces a $161 million budget deficit, driven largely by debt-service payments. MBTA revenues—which are largely supported by dedicated state sales tax, $777 million in FY12—have increased from $1.44 billion inFY09 to $1.65 billion in FY12 because of an increase in contract assistance. However, revenues have not kept up with increasing expenses, driven by large debt payments. As of FY12, MBTA expenses were $1.65 billion of which more than $362 million were debt service payments. Since FY01, debt payments have been between one-quarter and one-third of total expenses. MBTA total debt service now stands at $8.5 billion while the system also faces a $4.5 billion backlog in deferred maintenance and other projects.